Lithium is an effective treatment in pregnancy and postpartum for the prevention of relapse in bipolar disorder. However, lithium has also been associated with risks during pregnancy for both the mother and the unborn child. Recent large studies have confirmed the association between first trimester lithium exposure and an increased risk of congenital malformations. Importantly, the risk estimates from these studies are lower than previously reported. Tapering of lithium during the first trimester could be considered but should be weighed against the risks of relapse. There seems to be no association between lithium use and pregnancy or delivery related outcomes, but more research is needed to be more conclusive. When lithium is prescribed during pregnancy, lithium blood levels should be monitored more frequently than outside of pregnancy and preferably weekly in the third trimester. We recommend a high-resolution ultrasound with fetal anomaly scanning at 20 weeks. Ideally, delivery should take place in a specialised hospital where psychiatric and obstetric care for the mother is provided and neonatal evaluation and monitoring of the child can take place immediately after birth. When lithium is discontinued during pregnancy, lithium could be restarted immediately after delivery as strategy for relapse prevention postpartum. Given the very high risk of relapse in the postpartum period, a high target therapeutic lithium level is recommended. Most clinical guidelines discourage breastfeeding in women treated with lithium. It is highly important that clinicians inform and advise women about the risks and benefits of remaining on lithium in pregnancy, if possible preconceptionally. In this narrative review we provide an up-to-date overview of the literature on lithium use during pregnancy and after delivery leading to clinical recommendations.

Background: Unplanned or unintended pregnancies form a major public health concern because they are associated with unfavorable birth outcomes as well as social adversity, stress and depression among parents-to-be. Several risk factors for unplanned pregnancies in women have previously been identified, but studies usually take a unidimensional approach by focusing on only one or few factors, disregarding the possibility that predictors might cluster. Furthermore, data on predictors in men are largely overlooked. The purpose of this study is to determine predictors of unplanned versus planned pregnancy, to determine predictors of ambivalent feelings regarding pregnancy, and to investigate how characteristics of men and women with an unplanned pregnancy cluster together. Methods: This study was embedded in Generation R, a multiethnic population-based prospective cohort from fetal life onwards. Pregnancy intention was reported by 7702 women and 5367 partners. Information on demographic, mental, physical, social, and sexual characteristics was obtained. Logistic regression, multinomial regression and cluster analyses were performed to determine characteristics that were associated with an unplanned pregnancy, with ambivalent feelings regarding the unplanned pregnancy and the co-occurrence of characteristics in women and men with unplanned pregnancy. Results: Twenty nine percent of the pregnancies were unplanned. Logistic regression analyses showed that 42 of 44 studied predictors were significantly associated with unplanned pregnancy. The most important predictors were young age, migration background, lower educational level, lower household income, financial difficulties, being single, lower cognitive ability, drug use prior to pregnancy, having multiple sexual partners in the year prior to the pregnancy, younger age of first sexual contact and a history of abortion. Multinomial regression analyses showed that a Turkish or Moroccan background, Islamic religion, little financial opportunities, being married, having ≥3 children, high educational level, more mental health and social problems and older age of first sexual contact were associated with prolonged ambivalent feelings regarding pregnancy. Different combinations of characteristics were observed in the four clusters of women and men with unplanned pregnancy. Conclusions: Many predictors are related with unplanned pregnancies, ambivalent feelings toward the pregnancy, and we identified very heterogeneous groups of women and men with unplanned pregnancies. This calls for heterogeneous measures to prevent unplanned pregnancies.

The COVID-19 pandemic has a major impact on society, particularly affecting its vulnerable members, including pregnant women and their unborn children. Pregnant mothers reported fear of infection, fear of vertical transmission, fear of poor birth and child outcomes, social isolation, uncertainty about their partner’s presence during medical appointments and delivery, increased domestic abuse, and other collateral damage, including vaccine hesitancy. Accordingly, pregnant women’s known vulnerability for mental health problems has become a concern during the COVID-19 pandemic, also because of the known effects of prenatal stress for the unborn child. The current narrative review provides a historical overview of transgenerational effects of exposure to disasters during pregnancy, and the role of maternal prenatal stress. We place these effects into the perspective of the COVID-19 pandemic. Hereby, we aim to draw attention to the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on women of reproductive age (15–49 year) and its potential associated short-term and long-term consequences for the health of children who are conceived, carried, and born during this pandemic. Timely detection and intervention during the first 1000 days is essential to reduce the burden of transgenerational effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Depression during pregnancy is a common and high impact disease. Generally, 5–10 % of pregnant women suffer from depression. Children who have been exposed to maternal depression during pregnancy have a higher risk of adverse birth outcomes and more often show cognitive, emotional and behavioural problems. Therefore, early detection and treatment of antepartum depression is necessary. Both psychotherapy and antidepressant medication, first choice treatments in a non-pregnant population, have limitations in treating depression during pregnancy. Therefore, it is urgent and relevant to investigate alternative treatments for antepartum depression. Bright light therapy (BLT) is a promising treatment for pregnant women with depressive disorder, for it combines direct availability, sufficient efficacy, low costs and high safety, taking the safety for the unborn child into account as well. In this study, 150 pregnant women (12–18 weeks pregnant) with a DSM-V diagnosis of depressive disorder will be randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to one of the two treatment arms: treatment with BLT (9.000 lux) or treatment with dim red light therapy (100 lux). Both groups will be treated for 6 weeks at home on a daily basis for 30 min, within 30 min of habitual wake-up time. Follow-up will take place after 6 weeks of therapy, 3 and 10 weeks after end of therapy, at birth and 2, 6 and 18 months postpartum. Primary outcome will be the average change in depressive symptoms between the two groups, as measured by the Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Depression Scale – Seasonal Affective Disorder version and the Edinburg Postnatal Depression Scale. Changes in rating scale scores of these questionnaires over time will be analysed using generalized linear mixed models. Secondary outcomes will be the changes in maternal cortisol and melatonin levels, in maternal sleep quality and gestational age, birth weight, infant behaviour, infant cortisol exposure and infant cortisol stress response. If BLT reduces depressive symptoms in pregnant women, it will provide a safe, cheap, non-pharmacological and efficacious alternative treatment for psychotherapy and antidepressant medication in treating antepartum depression, without any expected adverse reactions for the unborn child. Netherlands Trial Register NTR5476 . Registered 5 November 2015.

Maternity care increasingly focuses on evaluating psychosocial vulnerability during pregnancy. Research and nationwide (public health) programs, both in the USA and Europe, led to the development of new protocols and screening instruments for care providers to systematically screen for psychosocial vulnerability in pregnant women. However, standardised screening for vulnerability is complex since it requires discussion of sensitive issues. Women may fear stigmatisation and may have limited trust in their care providers or the health system. Our study contributes to the growing field of client-facing risk work by exploring care providers' interpretations and evaluation of psychosocial vulnerability in pregnant women. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with Dutch maternity care providers, we explore how they conceptualise risk and vulnerability and identify 'vulnerable pregnant women' in their practices. We find that care providers conceptualise 'vulnerability' as primarily based on risk, which contributes to an imbalanced focus on individual mothers, rather than on both parents and the social context. Our findings highlight care providers' concerns around 'care avoidance', seen as a risk factor affecting 'vulnerability' during pregnancy and as a possible consequence of risk screening. The care providers we interviewed employ "in between-strategies" based on intuition, emotion, and trust to skillfully attend to the risk that comes with risk work, in terms of its potential impact on relationships of trust and open communication. We conclude that 'vulnerability' should be understood as a multi-layered, situated and relational concept rather than simply as an epidemiological category. Since a trusting relationship between pregnant women and care providers is crucial for the evaluation of vulnerability, we reflect critically on the risk of standardised perinatal psychosocial risk evaluations. Policy should recognise providers' "in between-strategies" to embed epidemiological understandings of risk in the context of everyday risk work.